Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 26 November 2014

by S. Ashworth BA (Hons) BPI MRTPi an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 31 December 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/M9496/A/14/2226137 The Old School House, Lower Farm, Brushfield, Taddington, Derbyshire SK17 9UQ

- The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.
- The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs A Charboneau against the decision of Peak District National Park Authority.
- The application Ref NP/DDD/0414/0375, dated 18 March 2014, was refused by notice dated 14 August 2014.
- The application sought planning permission for conversion of former school to holiday cottage without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref NP/DDD/1104/1215, dated 26 May 2005.
- The condition in dispute is No 5 which states that: ‘This permission relates solely to the use of the premises hereby approved for short-term holiday residential use; the property shall not be occupied as a permanent dwelling and shall not be occupied by any one person for a period exceeding 28 days in any calendar year’.
- The reason given for the condition is: ‘Permission has been granted in accordance with policy RT3 of the Structure Plan which permits the conversion of traditional buildings to holiday accommodation. Conversion to a permanent dwelling would be contrary to Structure Plan Policies.’

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Main Issue

2. The main issue in this case is whether the disputed condition is reasonable and necessary, in the interests of being consistent with the principles of sustainable development, having regard to current planning policy and guidance.

Reasons

03. The Old School House is a detached stone building located within the small hamlet of Brushfield which comprises a group of dwellings and holiday cottages. The Old School House, which is in use as a holiday cottage, and its curtilage, is located to the south eastern end of Lower Farm. The hamlet lies within the open countryside.

04. The appellant seeks to remove condition 5 attached to the original planning permission, which restricts the occupancy of the appeal building to a short-let holiday residential use (maximum 28 days continuous stay per calendar year). Therefore were I to allow the appeal, its removal would have the effect of granting planning permission for conversion to a permanent dwelling to meet general demand.

05. The Peak District National Park Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Core Strategy) adopted in 2011 carries forward the policy approach adopted by the Authority for many years; that it is not appropriate to permit new housing in the countryside simply in response to the significant open market demand to live in its sought after environment. This reflects the purposes of the National Park’s Statutory Designation.

06. Accordingly Core Strategy Policy HC1 states that new housing, including the re-use of buildings, will only be accepted under exceptional circumstances. These include where it addresses eligible local need; provides for key rural workers or is required in order to achieve conservation/enhancement of a valued vernacular or listed building. This policy is consistent with paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework which sets out criteria where residential development in rural areas might be found acceptable. These criteria include the re-use of a redundant or disused building where it would lead to an enhancement in the immediate setting, or in order to meet an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work.

07. The building is of local vernacular interest. As a result of the works involved in its conversion, the building has been sympathetically restored and retained. As such the removal of the holiday occupancy condition is not necessary to secure the conversion or enhancement of the building, as that has already taken place. There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the removal of condition 5 would result in a dwelling that would meet eligible local needs or provide for key worker accommodation. Consequently the proposal would not meet the tests of policy HC1 for new housing in the countryside.

08. The appellants have drawn my attention to a decision by the Authority to grant planning permission effectively for the removal of a holiday occupancy condition at a nearby property at Lower Farm (ref NP/DDD/1109/1030) in 2010. The officer report accompanying that decision suggests that as the building was sited within a hamlet of 6 other dwellings its conversion to a permanent dwelling would be less pronounced and this justified approval contrary to policy.

09. Since this decision the government has produced the National Planning Policy Framework which sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is a material consideration in this appeal. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, paragraph 55 requires housing to be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. New isolated homes should be avoided unless there are special circumstances such as those outlined above.

10. The appeal building is located within a group of buildings. However, that group is isolated from local services, reached by a narrow tortuous track leading from the A6. The hamlet is separated from the nearest village, Taddington, by the A6 which is a fast and busy road with no footpaths or lighting and which is therefore unsuitable as a walking or cycling route. As such the building lies in an unsustainable location. While the appellants consider that a permanent dwelling would support services in Taddington, more than would a holiday cottage, there is no convincing evidence before me to that effect. Consequently, the proposal to create a permanent dwelling would not meet the tests in the Framework.

11. I have taken into consideration the appellants’ contention that the use of the building as an affordable local need dwelling would reduce its market value by some 25%. Be this as it may, the use of the building for such a purpose would be an exception to the Authority’s restrictive approach to the provision of new residential development in the countryside and would be in line with its aim to deliver affordable housing to meet local need in accordance with the Framework.

12. I accept that the use of the building as a permanent dwelling would not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the building or its surroundings. However, the proposal would not achieve the aims of either Policy HC1 or Policy LH1, which accepts that affordable housing in the countryside can be provided to meet local need. Consequently, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the removal of the disputed condition to permit the independent and unrestricted occupation of the building would conflict with the Authority’s housing policies and advice within the Framework.

13. Therefore, taking all other matters raised into account, the appeal is dismissed.

S. Ashworth

INSPECTOR